On tbe facts found by tbe court at tbe trial of tbis action, tbe judgment against E. L. Godwin for tbe sum of $900.00, wbicb was duly docketed on tbe judgment docket of tbe Superior Court of Harnett County, and wbicb was subsequently transferred and assigned to tbe defendant, L. J. Best, who is now tbe owner thereof, was a lien on tbe lot of land now owned by tbe plaintiff, at tbe date of tbe issuance of tbe policy of insurance sued on in tbis action, and also at tbe date of tbe destruction by fire of tbe building covered by said policy. C. S., 614. Eaton v. Doub, 190 N. C., 14, 128 S. E., 494.
Tbe defendant, L. J. Best, bad tbe right to enforce tbis lien by tbe sale of tbe lot of land, with all improvements thereon, under execution on tbe judgment, or by other appropriate proceeding. He bad, however, no title to or estate in tbe lot of land, or tbe building located thereon; be bad only tbe right to have tbe land and improvements thereon, whether made by tbe judgment debtor, or by tbe plaintiff, who claims title to tbe lot of land under an unregistered deed from tbe judgment debtor, appropriated to tbe satisfaction of tbe judgment. Farrow v. Ins. Co., 192 N. C., 148, 134 S. E., 427; Eaton v. Doub, 190 N. C., 14, 128 S. E., 494.
*410Tbe question as to whether the defendant, L. J. Best, had an insurable interest in the building located on the lot of land, which was destroyed by fire on 22 August, 1930, is not presented in this action. It has been held that one holding a lien on property to secure a debt has an insurable interest in such property to the amount of the lien. 26 C. J., 27. In the instant case, the defendant, L. J. Best, had not insured his interest, as the owner of the judgment lien, in the building on the lot of land. The policy issued to plaintiff and sued on in this action contains no loss payable clause directing that the loss, if any, under the policy shall be paid to the defendant; nor was there any agreement on the part of the plaintiff to insure the building for the benefit of the defendant. Fitts v. Grocery Co., 144 N. C., 463, 57 S. E., 164, cited and relied upon by the appellant, has no application to the facts of this case.
The only question presented by this action is whether the defendant, L. J. Best, as the owner of a judgment lien on the lot on which the building insured was located, is entitled to the proceeds of the policy issued to the plaintiff by the defendant, Pilot Fire Insurance Company. This question was decided by the court below in the negative. In this, there was no error.
“One who has a mere lien only on the insured property has no claim to the insurance money realized by the insured in the event of the loss of the property, for a claim on the insurance money can arise only out of contract.” 26 C. J., 445. In the instant case there was no contract between the insurance company and the defendant, L. J. Best, or between said defendant and plaintiff, with respect to insurance on the building which was destroyed by fire.
The judgment that plaintiff recover of the defendant, Pilot Eire Insurance Company, the sum of $500.00, and of the defendant, L. J. Best, the costs of the action, is
Affirmed.